[1518] Sanh. 33 t Horay 4 a.
[1519] Some traditional explanation of the Law of Moses was absolutely necessary, if it was to be applied to existing circumstances. It would be a great historical inaccuracy to imagine that the Sadducees rejected the whole pardosis tn presbutron (St. Matt. xv. 2) from Ezra downwards.
[1520] This is the meaning of Ant. xiii. 10. 6, and clearly implied in xviii. 1,3,4, and War ii. 8. 14.
[1521] Ab. iii. 11; v 8.
[1522] Jos. War i. 5. 2.
[1523] M. Derenbourg (Hist. de la Palest., p. 122, note) rightly remarks, that the Rabbinic equivalent for Josephus' krbeia is {hebrew}, heaviness, and that the Pharisees were the {hebrew} or makers heavy.' What a commentary this on the charge of Jesus about the heavy burdens' of the Pharisees! St. Paul uses the same term as Josephus to describe the Pharisaic system, where our A.V. renders the perfect manner' (Acts xxii. 3). Comp. also Acts xxvi. 5: kat tn kribestten aresin.
[1524] Ant. xviii. 1. 3.
[1525] Ant. xviii. 1. 3.
[1526] Sanh. xi. 3.
[1527] The subject is discussed at length in Jer. Ber. i. 7 (p. 3 b), where the superiority of the Scribe over the Prophet is shown (1) from Mic. ii. 6 (without the words in italics), the one class being the Prophets (prophesy not'), the other the Scribes (prophesy'); (2) from the fact that the Prophets needed the attestation of miracles. (Duet. xiii. 2), but not the Scribes (Deut. xvii. 11).
[1528] St. Matt xxii. 23, and parallel passages; Acts iv. 1, 2; xxiii. 8.
[1529] War ii. 8. 14.
[1530] Ant. xviii 1. 4.
[1531] Ab. d. R. Nath.5.
[1532] Ber ix. 5.
[1533] This is admitted even by Geiger (Urschr. u. Uebers. p. 130, note), though in the passage above referred to he would emendate: Scribes of the Samaritans.' The passage, however, implies that these were Sadducean Scribes, and that they were both willing and able to enter into theological controversy with their opponents.
[1534] Rabbi Gamaliel's proof was taken from Deut. i. 8: Which Jehovah sware unto your fathers to give unto them.' It is not said unto you,' but unto them,' which implies the resurrection of the dead. The argument is kindred in character, but far inferior in solemnity and weight, to that employed by our Lord, St. Matt. xxii. 32, from which it is evidently taken. (See book v. ch. iv., the remarks on that passage.)
[1535] It is a curious circumstance in connection with the question of the Sadducees, that it raised another point in controversy between the Pharisees and the Samaritans,' or, as I would read it, the Sadducees, since the Samaritans' (Sadducees?) only allowed marriage with the betrothed, not the actually wedded wife of a deceased childless brother (Jer Yebam. i. 6, p. 3 a). The Sadducees in the Gospel argue on the Pharisaic theory, apparently for the twofold object of casting ridicule on the doctrine of the Resurrection, and on the Pharisaic practice of marriage with the espoused wife of a deceased brother.
[1536] Acts xxiii.
[1537] The expression is used in the heathen (philosophical) sense of fate by Philo, De Incorrupt. Mundi. section 10. ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 496 (ed. Fref. p. 947).
[1538] In Jewish War ii. 8. 14.
[1539] Ant. xviii. 1. 3.
[1540] Ant. xiii. 5. 9.
[1541] Sanh. 29 a.
[1542] Chull. 7 b.
[1543] The following curious instance of this is given. On one occasion King Solomon, when attended by his two Scribes, Elihoreph and Ahiah (both supposed to have been Ethiopians), suddenly perceived the Angel of Death. As he looked so sad, Solomon ascertained as its reason, that the two Scribes had been demanded at his hands. On this Solomon transported them by magic into the land of Luz, where, according to legend, no man ever died. Next morning Solomon again perceived the Angel of Death, but this time laughing, because, as he said. Solomon had sent these men to the very place whence he had been ordered to fetch them (Sukk, 53 a).